Native wrote:So, how do these informations fits your tidal ideas and hypothesis???

I agree with Dr. Anthoni's approach of dealing with oceanic and crustal tides separately, and with his treatment of oceanic tides as a matter of wave resonance, not just lunar/solar forcing. And he correctly acknowledges that while the oceanic tides are very complex, the crustal tides are simple, and track the Moon's location quite precisely (with roughly a 2 hour lag to the maximum effect, which is to be expected).

But he actually doesn't explain semi-diurnal crustal bulges.

As has been observed with other stellar objects rotating in close proximity, their round shapes become distorted by gravity. Likewise the earth is pulled into a slightly oval form, independently by both the moon and the sun. As the earth rotates, these bulges (crustal tides) travel round the planet in the times calculated above. So the simple two-bulge model is true for the earth's crust. Being 2.8 times denser than water, and much deeper than the oceans, a crustal tide can easily run as a gravity wave at the calculated speeds without losing much energy.

I agree that with <55 cm of deflection, crustal waves are well within the elastic limits, and therefore can propagate without losing much energy. But he leaves the far side bulge up to the imagination, loosely implying that it is just a standing wave. Yet 12 hours isn't a resonance frequency of the crust. Furthermore, the crust has so many irregularities (such as the continents) that waves are refracted and randomized. So the crust doesn't display any of the spherical oscillation modes that we see in other bodies, such as the Sun. Thus Anthoni never directly answers the questions of the two-bulge model.

IMO, semi-diurnal tides can only be explained with electrostatics, within the CFDL model.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

"In most locations, the largest constituent is the "principal lunar semi-diurnal", also known as the M2 (or M2) tidal constituent.

During this time, it has passed overhead (culmination) once and underfoot once (at an hour angle of 00:00 and 12:00 respectively), so in many places the period of strongest tidal forcing is the above mentioned, about 12 hours and 25 minutes.

The moment of highest tide is not necessarily when the Moon is nearest to zenith or nadir, but the period of the forcing still determines the time between high tides.

AD: It is just like when Newton stated the laws of gravity watching an apple falling to the ground - without no pondering over how the fluids and elements defeats gravity and came up in the tree and made the apple in the first place. It seems very much to me that several hundred years of gravity thinking are based on the right observations connected to the wrong terrestrial and celestial movements and forces.From http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/tides.htm#simple

"(About) Wave speed: Since the tide is just another gravity wave travelling along the ocean's surface, it must satisfy the laws for waves as explained in the wave chapter. For a wave to travel along the equator of 40,000 km in 25 hours, requires a speed of around 1600 km/hr, which is not sustainable. The maximum wave speed in a 'channel' of 5000m deep is about 800km/hr. Average depth of the ocean is around 3800m, demanding a lower speed still.

AD: Doesn´t he mix up "gravity waves" and oceanic waves here? The Earth´s rotational velocity is approximately 1700 km/h which of course creates the Earth´s equatorial bulging - and a separate, semi-diurnal, bulging effect in the oceans because of the firm land masses and the fluent oceans.

The oceans are forced to show "vertical ups and downs patterns" according to the 1700 km/h rotational velocity and of course some average "time delayed motions" can be measured in the oceans because of the horizontal coastal motions of the seas - and thus be connected to the lunar motions without having anything conventionally to do with these in the first place.

When measuring "tidal time", the oceans are moving perpendicularly to Earth´s rotational time in larger coastal areas and this of course shows up some tidal rhythms over the 24 h. which just can be coincidental with the lunar time.

- I know of the Newtonian ideas of the "double bulge" in order to "balance the gravity theories", but are there real scientifical measurements and proofs of this double bulge?

BTW: If thinking of the semi-diurnal exceptions and uncertainties mentioned above in the link: If supposing your CFDL model to be plausible and correct, can this explain the mentioned exceptions?

Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

Native wrote:I know of the Newtonian ideas of the "double bulge" in order to "balance the gravity theories", but are there real scientific measurements and proofs of this double bulge?

Yes, it's observed -- it isn't just a prediction of gravity theory. In fact, gravity never would have predicted it, because gravity can't explain it.

Native wrote:If thinking of the semi-diurnal exceptions and uncertainties mentioned above in the link: If supposing your CFDL model to be plausible and correct, can this explain the mentioned exceptions?

Yes.

The fact that the Moon's force is more than double the Sun's, despite the fact that by the inverse square law (as applied to either gravity or electrostatics) the Sun's force should be 179 times the Moon's, is that the electric force is a function of charge, not mass. So it doesn't matter that the Sun's gravity is 179 times that of the Moon's -- what matters is the build-up of charge that tracks the Moon twice as much as it does the Sun.

The fact that the maximum crustal bulge occurs roughly 2 hours after the zenith is just the simple consequence of the response of something with inertia to a force -- it has to be accelerated. This would be true regardless of the forcing mechanism.

Oceanic tides are a lot more complex, due to resonance.

But note that dual crustal bulges cannot be explained as gravity waves, since the harmonic frequencies aren't correct. So the crustal tides are simply a direct response to the forcing mechanism.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

I'm still lost..... 1st question: Are you saying that the moon's charge affects the ionosphere, and the charge of the ionosphere is what attracts the oppositely charged oceans ?

2nd question: Depends on answer....

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Sparky wrote:Are you saying that the moon's charge affects the ionosphere, and the charge of the ionosphere is what attracts the oppositely charged oceans?

Basically, yes. To be more precise, I'm focusing on the crustal tides, instead of the oceanic tides, because the water sloshes around in complex ways, while the crust simply responds directly to the forcing mechanism (i.e., electrostatic attraction to the ionosphere, which is attracted to the Moon).

BTW, the spring tides are the greatest, not just because the Moon & Sun are in line, meaning that their forces combine. There is also an important effect of the alignment on the interplanetary medium. To get a build-up of +ions in the IPM, we have to do something about the solar wind, which would otherwise tend to sweep them away. This would happen during neap tides, when the Earth-Moon line is perpendicular to the solar wind. But in spring tides, the Earth-Moon line is parallel to the solar wind. Thus either the Moon is shielding the Earth from the solar wind, or vice versa. Either way, in the lee of whichever object is nearer the Sun, more +ions can build up, increasing the effect.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Basically, yes. To be more precise, I'm focusing on the crustal tides, instead of the oceanic tides, because the water sloshes around in complex ways, while the crust simply responds directly to the forcing mechanism (i.e., electrostatic attraction to the ionosphere, which is attracted to the Moon).

AD: Still you have to explain the "watery sloshings" satisfyingly, right?

If accepting the electrostatic theory, how does this charge turn on and off in your theory, supposedly causing the multiple tidal/crustal rhythms and motions?

BTW: Do you consider terrestrial and celestial electrostatics to relieve the unsufficient gravity ideas in general?

Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

CC, 2nd question: How come the charge does not spread out into the ionosphere, affecting everything equally?

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Native wrote:Still you have to explain the "watery sloshings" satisfyingly, right?

Ummm... I waved my hands at it... is that good enough? The oceanic tides basically track the Moon's position, but then there are huge variances in local tides, depending on how the waves resonate in the ocean basins. In fact, there are places in the middle of oceans where there are no tides at all, because they are at the null point in the harmonic oscillations. I'm satisfied that a little bit of forcing from the Moon and Sun, and a lot of resonance, could produce such waves. But that's as far as I've gotten in the study.

Native wrote:If accepting the electrostatic theory, how does this charge turn on and off in your theory, supposedly causing the multiple tidal/crustal rhythms and motions?

The charge tracks the Moon (and the Sun to a lesser extent). So it isn't a switching mechanism. It's an induced charge that follows a moving object, so it comes and goes, depending on the position of the object being tracked.

Native wrote:Do you consider terrestrial and celestial electrostatics to relieve the unsufficient gravity ideas in general?

If you are talking about the so-called "gravitational anomalies", on Earth and in space, the answer is, "Yes!"

Sparky wrote:How come the charge does not spread out into the ionosphere, affecting everything equally?

The attraction is toward the Moon, because the like charges of the Earth and Moon create a concentration of opposite charge between them, and then both the Earth and Moon are attracted to that concentration.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Sparky wrote:How come the charge does not spread out into the ionosphere, affecting everything equally?

CC: The attraction is toward the Moon, because the like charges of the Earth and Moon create a concentration of opposite charge between them, and then both the Earth and Moon are attracted to that concentration.

Whatever the charge is, positive or negative, it has to move through or pass by an opposite charge. And consider the force of the solar wind. These charges should dissipate or scatter. What force holds them in an effective concentration to affect the Earth , through the ionosphere? Which is the last hurdle for any charges coming to Earth.

For the charges to affect Earth as it appears to be affected, there would have to be an on and off again presence. The moon's charge is always on. It may sweep around the Earth, but it is always on. Why doesn't the constant charge upon the Earth scatter the charges.? These are attractive charge effects, right? You are getting an AC resonance by this process!:?

Aren't you running into the same problems as you would with gravity?

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Sparky wrote:For the charges to affect Earth as it appears to be affected, there would have to be an on and off again presence. The moon's charge is always on. It may sweep around the Earth, but it is always on. Why doesn't the constant charge upon the Earth scatter the charges.? These are attractive charge effects, right? You are getting an AC resonance by this process! Aren't you running into the same problems as you would with gravity?

I don't fully understand the question, but I can re-state my position, if that would help.

Let's think in terms of a Debye cell, which has a negatively charged particle of some sort at the center, surrounded by positively charged plasma. The whole thing is net neutral, because the electrons that are missing from the plasma are all in the electron cloud of the central particle. And the electric force keeps the cell organized, since the positively charged plasma is attracted to the negatively charged particle in the center. Due to the net neutrality, Langmuir concluded that despite the charge separation, a Debye cell will not interact electrically with another Debye cell. The plasma sheaths are stable in the separated state, and the quasi-neutrality of the entire cell leaves no net force for interactions between cells.

But Feynman disagreed. He said that between two negatively charged particles, there will be a concentration of positive plasma, attracted to the combined negative field from the central particles. Then, just as the positive plasma is attracted to the negative particles, the negative particles are attracted to the positive sheaths around them. Ordinarily, the negative particles will just sit there in the middle of their cells, but if there is a concentration of positive plasma in one particular direction, the negative particles will move in that direction. And there will be just such a concentration between two Debye cells. This produces a net attractive force between two quasi-neutral Debye cells, which Feynman called the "like-likes-like" force, or the Paradoxical Effect.

This is the attractive force that I'm crediting for crustal tides. The Earth and the Moon are negatively charged, so between them, there will be a concentration of +ions. Then, both the Earth and the Moon will be attracted to those shared +ions.

Note than gravity operates on the entire mass in the same direction. For this reason, it has a hard time creating a near side bulge, and is quite incapable of creating a far side bulge. But the electric force selectively operates on charged particles. This means that the net negative crust can get selectively tugged toward the net positive ionosphere, creating a near side bulge that gravity would not create (without a strong gravity gradient). Electric charges also obey the laws of induction, creating equal-but-opposite effects that account for the far side bulge. Once there is a concentration of positive charge on the near side, sufficient to satisfy the combined negative charge of the Earth and Moon, the positive charge density in the ionosphere won't just fall off gradually to a perfectly even distribution on the far side. Rather, any concentration of charge in one place always induces an opposite charge elsewhere. So the concentration of positive charge on the near side repels excess positive charges. Around the outside of a spherical object, the repelled charges will congregate on the opposite side, creating an equal-but-opposite congregation. This will create a crustal bulge on the opposite side.

So to understand this, you have to remember the laws of induction, and the inverse square law. It would help if I did better diagrams, and possibly some computational simulations, rather than just repeating the verbal description. But that's what I have at present.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Okey,I follow your Debye cell explanation....Thanks....My last post was me trying to figure out how charge would not dissipate. You can see in the above image that the plasmasphere changes shape.

Your hypothesis: How can it be tested? A series of vertical charges , taken from different areas, and corellated to moon's position and tides.?

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Sparky wrote:My last post was me trying to figure out how charge would not dissipate.

If the Earth & Moon stopped having a net charge, the shared opposite charge between them would dissipate. But as long as they're charged, there perforce has to be a concentration of opposite charge between them, by the laws of induction. So the primary charged objects (i.e., the Earth & Moon) keep the whole charge structure organized.

Sparky wrote:Your hypothesis: How can it be tested? A series of vertical charges , taken from different areas, and correlated to moon's position and tides.

It's already consistent with the existing data, at least in the sense that there very definitely is a concentration of charge in the ionosphere that varies directly with the tides.

The next step would be to run calcs, to see exactly how much force is actually being exerted, and to ask whether or not that would hoist the crust up to 55 cm at high tide. That will take a non-trivial effort. I'll do a lot more sanity checking on the whole model before I drill down any more on this. I like making a broad review of all of the related topics, to get an overview of what-all is involved. The labor involved in developing mathematical proofs tends to lock people down on what they were trying to prove. You can get published that way, but you get right? So I'm still investigating related phenomena. So far, everything I've found is consistent with the current-free double-layer (CFDL) model, including tides, the location and characteristics of the Moho, the rigidity of the crust versus the plasticity of the mantle, tectonic plate movement (riding on the frictionless Moho), earthquakes, volcanoes, Seneca Guns, and the geomagnetic field. That's enough stuff that I'm no longer working on one possible explanation for one phenomenon -- I'm looking at "the" model that sorts it all out. And once you start talking about "the" model, it's a lot easier to double-check, because you can just look for anything that doesn't obey the stated laws. Still searching...

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

I just thought that I'd mention that there is another EM hypothesis concerning crustal tides that should be considered, having to do with piezoelectricity. We know that when quartz crystals are exposed to an electric field, they deform. This electro-mechanical conversion is what drives piezo tweeters. Well, this is an interesting alternative to my simple electric force model of crustal tides. I was saying that a build-up of positive ions in the ionosphere associated with tides is hoisting the crust (<55 cm), just with an electrostatic tug, because the crust is negatively charged, and so there is an attractive force there. But there's another possibility -- perhaps it isn't so much of an electrostatic tug, but rather, that the electric field causes the deformation of quartz crystals, which pressurizes the crust into buckling upward. In other words, crustal tides might be just an over-sized piezo tweeter (or sub-sonic woofer rather).

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and the total 55 cm deformation might be the product of both forces.

If somebody has already thought of this, please accept my apologies for not citing the source(s), and please let me know if somebody has fleshed out this idea at all.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.